4 ms·
Well, maybe. From the article, the judge argued that allowing the swap would enable strategizing: > So to allow trading would be to enable strategic behavior i
by elygre 8y ago
Well, maybe. From the article, the judge argued that allowing the swap would enable strategizing:
> So to allow trading would be to enable strategic behavior in future years. This would make the workings of the lottery system less clear. But it could also give an unfair advantage to students that are better at strategizing — and to students that have more resources to make good strategic decisions.
I would argue that there is a "greater good" at play, and that while this particular instance would not change anything, allowing it would open the door for future problems.
I then believe that Europeans are more willing to accept that consequence than Americans are. (YMMV, not science, just a feeling, etc) (edit: formatting the quote)
- lobotryas 8y agoI just don't see the judge's argument. By that logic we should only allow people who pass a rigorous certification to invest on the stock market. Casual investors should be banned because they will just lose money and that's (somehow) unfair.
- Tijdreiziger 8y agoThe point of the stock market is to speculate. The point of the educational system is not.
- IncRnd 8y agoExactly! So why not let more students go to the schools that are their choices (and their parents)? From the article, "...not all schools are the same. Some schools offer music and dance classes, others offer more sports classes." How could forcing students to speculate at non-core subjects that don't interest them (and lie beyond their talents) be better for them or for the common good?
- chrisbennet 8y agoThe answer to your question is in the article.
- IncRnd 8y agoNot an answer, a dismissal, of that question is in the article. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It is an extraordinary claim to say that disadvantaging many is for the common good.